List deployments

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context—no mention of pagination behavior, rate limits, or output format. It is merely a restatement of the title.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and front-loaded, but it is under-specified for a tool with 9 parameters. While short, it sacrifices clarity and useful context, making it less effective than a slightly longer description would be.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 9 parameters and no output schema, the description should provide more context about return values, pagination, or filtering. The single phrase 'Deployment history of a project' is inadequate for an agent to understand what the tool returns or how to use it effectively.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 56%, leaving parameters like sort, status, order_by, and environment without descriptions. The tool description offers no explanation for these parameters, failing to compensate for the schema gaps.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Deployment history of a project' conveys the resource (deployments) and scope (project) but lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'retrieve'. It does not distinguish from sibling list tools such as gitlab_list_environments or gitlab_list_releases.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.